energies

Article
Evaluation of Strategies to Reducing Traction
Energy Consumption of Metro Systems Using
an Optimal Train Control Simulation Model
Shuai Su *, Tao Tang and Yihui Wang
State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety, Beijing Jiaotong University,
No.3, Shangyuncun, Haidian District, Beijing 100044, China; ttang@bjtu.edu.cn (T.T.);
yihui.wang@bjtu.edu.cn (Y.W.)
* Correspondence: 10111043@bjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-138-1087-9341; Fax: +86-10-5168-4773

Academic Editor: Susan Krumdieck

Received: 5 December 2015; Accepted: 22 January 2016; Published: 12 February 2016

Abstract: Increasing attention is being paid to the energy efficiency in metro systems to reduce
the operational cost and to advocate the sustainability of railway systems. Classical research has
studied the energy-efficient operational strategy and the energy-efficient system design separately
to reduce the traction energy consumption. This paper aims to combine the operational strategies
and the system design by analyzing how the infrastructure and vehicle parameters of metro
systems influence the operational traction energy consumption. Firstly, a solution approach to
the optimal train control model is introduced, which is used to design the Optimal Train Control
Simulator(OTCS). Then, based on the OTCS, the performance of some important energy-efficient
system design strategies is investigated to reduce the trains’ traction energy consumption,
including reduction of the train mass, improvement of the kinematic resistance, the design of
the energy-saving gradient, increasing the maximum traction and braking forces, introducing
regenerative braking and timetable optimization. As for these energy-efficient strategies, the
performances are finally evaluated using the OTCS with the practical operational data of the Beijing
Yizhuang metro line. The proposed approach gives an example to quantitatively analyze the energy
reduction of different strategies in the system design procedure, which may help the decision makers
to have an overview of the energy-efficient performances and then to make decisions by balancing
the costs and the benefits.

Keywords: energy efficiency; metro system; train operation; optimal train control

1. Introduction
Metro systems aim to provide frequent, safe and comfortable journeys to a large number
of passengers in a short period of time, which make them become an important part of public
transportation to relieve traffic congestion. In addition, metro systems can transport more passengers
with less energy consumption and, thus, are regarded as a green transportation mode when compared
to buses and private car services. However, due to the large-scale operations of metro systems
(especially in big cities) and high-frequency services, a great amount of energy is consumed for
the daily operation. For example, in Beijing metro systems, there are 18 operating lines, and the
passengers can on average reach 10 million per day, which could increase to 11.5 million for peak
periods. The corresponding annual energy consumption is over 500 MWh. Hence, improving the
energy efficiency of metro systems will be of great interest for the operation company to reduce the
energy consumption, as well as the operational cost. Furthermore, according to the investigation in
the Railenergy project [1], the energy consumption in metro systems is mainly consumed in traction,

Energies 2016, 9, 105; doi:10.3390/en9020105 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 105 2 of 19

aeration, air condition, elevator, lighting and drainage (see Figure 1), among which the traction energy
plays the most important role. This implies that reducing the traction energy has a great potential in
improving the energy efficiency of metro systems, which will be studied in this paper consequently.

Traction energy
Traction 100%
Drainage Regenerative

40% 4% energy
33%

10% Lighting
Traction loss
Motors 8%
4% 12%
Others Elevator Converters 2%
30% 17%
Transmission 4%
Braking loss
Auxiliary
16% 20%
Aeration and aircondition Resistance systems

Figure 1. Energy consumption in metro systems.

As shown in Figure 1, the traction energy absorbed from the power supply system is mainly
consumed at the auxiliary system, overcoming the resistance, traction loss and the braking loss.
For most metro systems, the train’s kinetic energy can be converted back to electric energy when
trains apply regenerative braking. This part of regenerative braking energy can be reused by itself,
stored in on-board energy storage systems or be transmitted backwards to the overhead catenary or
the third rail and utilized by other trains, i.e., the regenerative energy could be reused in the systems.
Hence, the research on reducing the train traction energy consists of two aspects: cutting down the
losses and increasing the reused regenerative energy.
From the view of system engineering, the energy-efficient strategies can also be classified into
operational strategies and energy-efficient system design. Operational strategies aim to optimize
the utilization of the traction energy with the given infrastructure and vehicle conditions, e.g.,
energy-efficient driving strategy and timetable optimization. For a given interval, many driving
strategies are feasible with the fixed trip time, among which the energy-efficient driving strategy
consumes the minimum energy. Many literature works studied the optimal train control strategies
to minimize the mechanical traction energy [2,3]. The constraints in the optimal train control model
include the trip time, trip distance, maximum traction force, the maximum braking force and speed
limit. Additionally, the optimization problem can be solved by analytic methods [4,5], numerical
methods [6,7] and searching algorithms [8,9]. Differing from the works mentioned above, this
paper gives a detailed analysis on how the factors in the optimal train control model influence the
trains’ energy consumption and presents some possible energy-efficient strategies for metro systems.
Recently, theoretical studies have been directed towards the problem of designing an energy-efficient
timetable to save energy [6,10]. Albrecht [10] proposed a dynamic programming approach to find
the energy-efficient trip times based on the solution to the optimal train control problem. Su [6]
used an iterative algorithm to obtain the driving strategy for the entire route, which integrated the
driving strategy optimization and the distribution of the trip time. Scheepmaker [11] incorporated
energy-efficient train operation into the railway timetable by distributing the time supplements into
segments, and the robustness of the generated timetable was analyzed. Similar studies can be found
in [12,13]. Su [14] proposed a cooperative train control model to efficiently use the regenerative
energy by adjusting the departure time of the accelerating train. Gong [15] proposed an
energy-efficient operation methodology for metro lines, including timetable optimization and the
Energies 2016, 9, 105 3 of 19

driving strategy optimization. The proposed approach in [15] can adjust the dwell time of trains for
better utilization of the regenerative energy.
Energy-efficient system design integrates the efficient strategies into the design process, such
that the operational energy consumption could be reduced. To some extent, the energy-efficient
system design is of greater significance. Some researchers have studied smart infrastructure and
vehicle design methods to improve the efficiency of the metro systems, including the mass reduction,
the energy-efficient slopes, the installation of energy storage and the improvement of aerodynamics.
Carruthers [16] analyzed the influence of the material selection on the train mass and proposed that
7% of the savings in energy can be achieved with a 10% reduction in the train mass. Similar studies
were done by Rochard [17]. Walter [18] gave an overview of the various possibilities of increased
energy efficiency in electric railway systems, and highly reliable energy storage was focused on to
save energy and operation cost in the paper. Wang [19] and Xia [20] studied the optimization on
the location and size of the energy storage systems in metro lines, acting as a compromise between
satisfying better energy savings, voltage profile and lower installation cost.
The contribution of this paper is to create a connection between the operational strategies and
the system design strategies. The relative energy-efficient strategies are analyzed, and the influence
of the system design on the operational energy consumption can be quantitatively evaluated with
the optimal train control solution. The simulation results can give the decision makers an overview
of the energy-efficient performances with different strategies, which may help them to balance with
the investment according to their practical experience and make the final decision from a short- or a
long-term view.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the optimal train control model
and the corresponding solution are presented. In Section 3, some energy-efficient strategies with the
optimal train control model and the energy-efficient performances are evaluated with the practical
data of the Beijing Yizhuang metro line. A short discussion and future work are included in Section 4.

2. Optimal Train Control Model

The optimal train control problem applies the optimal control theory to optimize the driving
strategy between successive stations, such that the mechanical traction energy is minimized [3,21].
Z T
min E( T ) = k t (t)v(t) F (v(t))dt. (1)
0

E, T and v are the energy consumption, trip time and train speed, respectively. F denotes the
available maximum traction force, and k t is the relative traction force, i.e., the ratio between the
applied traction force and the maximum traction force. The mass-point model of the train is widely
used to describe the train movement as the following equations:

dv(t)
 m = k t F (v(t)) − k b B(v(t)) − g(s) − r (v),


dt
(2)
 ds = v,


dt
where B and k b denote the available maximum braking force and the relative braking force. g is
the gradient and curve resistance. r is the running resistance, which includes the friction and air
resistance. Generally, trains will not apply the traction and braking forces at the same time. Hence,

k t ∗ k b = 0. (3)

The boundary conditions and the constraint on the speed limit are:

v(0) = v( T ) = 0, v ≤ V (4)
Energies 2016, 9, 105 4 of 19

In addition, the trip distance constraint should be satisfied,

Z T
L= v(t)dt (5)
0

Additionally, the constraints on the relative traction and braking force are shown as follows.

k t ∈ [0, 1], k b ∈ [0, 1] (6)

The optimal train control model is concluded as Equations (1) to (6). By using the the Pontryagin
maximum principle, the optimal driving strategies are proven to consist of maximum acceleration,
cruising with partial power, cruising with partial braking, coasting and maximum braking [3,5]. The
previous works [6,7] have proposed a numerical algorithm to calculate the energy-efficient driving
strategy, which includes the control sequences and the corresponding switching points. The proposed
algorithm will firstly present an iterative algorithm to calculate the driving strategy for one section.
Then, the solution is extended to solve the driving strategy of multiple sections by distributing the
energy units to sections.

2.1. Calculation of the Driving Strategy for One Section

It is noted that the minimum energy consumption is uniquely determined by the trip time and
vice versa. Hence, the energy-efficient driving strategy can be calculated with either the known trip
time or the known energy consumption. For a section (section in the algorithm is defined as a
small part of the trip with a constant gradient and speed limit), the driving strategies of each section
will be maximum acceleration (MA), cruising (CR), coasting (CO) and maximum braking (MB) [22].
With the given energy consumption, we can firstly generate the speed sequences for the MA phase.
The CR speed sequences will be calculated with the remaining energy when the train speed has
reached the speed limit. The speed sequences of the rest of the journey will be covered by the CO
and MB phases. The details for obtaining the speed sequences of a given section are described in
Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: calculation of the energy-efficient driving strategy for a given section.

j
Step 1: Initialize the initial speed v0 and the energy consumption Ej for section j;
Step 2: Divide the section into n j pieces, such that the distance of each piece is ∆x;
Step 3: Generate the speed sequences for the MA phase;
j j j
vi = v0 , while Ej > 0, vi < V, do
j 2 j2 j j
vi+1 − vi = 2∆x ( F (vi )/m − r (vi )/m − g( xi )/m),

j
E = E − F (vi )∆x;
j
Step 4: If the speed vi has reached the speed limit, then partial braking or partial
power is applied to keep cruising, and the speed sequences are calculated as
j j
v i +1 = v i ;
Step 5: Generate the speed sequences for CO phase as,
j 2 j2 j
vi+1 − vi = 2∆x (−r (vi )/m − g( xi )/m);
j0
Step 6: If the MB phase exists, we calculate the braking speed sequences {vi } as,
j0 j j 2 j2 j0 j0
vk = vt , vi+1 − vi = 2∆x (− B(vk )/m − r (vk )/m − g( xk )/m),
j j0 j
and then, let vi = min(vi , vi );
j
Step 7: Return the optimal speed sequences vi and the trip time of this section
nj
∆x
Tj = ∑ j
.
i =0 vi

∆x is a small distance unit, which is assumed to be 1 m in the algorithm.

Energies 2016, 9, 105 5 of 19

2.2. Calculation of the Driving Strategy for Multiple Sections

For dealing with variable gradients and speed limits, the trip is divided into several sections,
such that each section has the constant gradient and speed limit. The speed sequence of each section
can be generated by Algorithm 1. Then, based on a primary solution, the energy unit (a small amount
of energy, which is assumed to be 0.05 kW·h in this algorithm) will be attempted to distribute to
each section for achieving the corresponding time reductions. After a comparison among these time
reductions, the energy unit will be finally assigned to the section that can achieve the maximum
time reduction. This distribution process will be repeated to shorten the primary trip time until the
practical trip time is delivered, after which the driving strategy and the speed profile will be obtained.
The flow chart of the algorithm is described in Figure 2 [6,7,23].

Section Try to Distribute Generate the Calculate the

Initialize the
partition and energy unit to speed sequences time reduction
input data
initialize Ti, Ei section i for sections ∆Ti

No

Output the Yes Distribute

optimal speed T=∑∆Ti energy unit to ∆Tj=max{∆Ti}
sequences section j

Figure 2. The flow chart for calculating the energy-efficient driving strategy of multiple sections.

The algorithm is used to design an Optimal Train Control Simulator (OTCS). The trip distance,
trip time, gradient, resistance, traction and braking characteristics and train mass are the inputs.
The energy-efficient train control strategies and the corresponding energy consumptions are the
outputs (see Figure 3). When the train stops at stations are taken as a speed limit of 0 km/h, the
OTCS can also be used to calculate the energy-efficient driving strategy for multiple interstations, as
well as the trip time at each interstation.

Timetable:
Infrastructure data: · Trip time
· Trip distance · Dwell time
· Line gradient · Turn-back time
· Curve
· Speed limit Simulation
· Tunnels
Optimal Train Output:
· Driving strategy
Control
· Trip time
Vehicle data: Simulator · Energy
· Traction force
consumption
· Braking force
· Regenerative braking
· Running resistance Dynamic
· Vehicle weight parameters:
· Train length · On-board passengers
· Total train mass

Figure 3. The flow chart of the OTCS.

Energies 2016, 9, 105 6 of 19

3. Energy-Efficient Strategies
To advocate a sustainable rail transportation, many measures have been taken to save energy.
According to the optimal train control model, the possible factors that influence the traction energy
consumption are the trip time, the gradient, the running resistance, the maximum traction and
braking forces, the regenerative braking and the train mass according to the OTCS. In the following
subsections, the influence of these factors on the traction energy consumption is analyzed separately
based on OTCS, from which effective solutions to saving energy are presented. The simulations are
based on the practical data of the Beijing Yizhuang line.

3.1. Data Preparation

3.1.1. Vehicle Data

The running resistance can be calculated [24] by:

r (v) = 0.005 × v2 + 0.23 × v + 2.965 kN (7)

The maximum traction force is given as follows.

(
F (v) = 310 kN, v ≤ 10m/s
(8)
F (v) = 310 − (v − 10) ∗ 10 kN, 10 < v ≤ 22.2m/s

The maximum electrical braking force is calculated by:

(
B(v) = 260 kN, v ≤ 15 m/s
(9)
B(v) = 260 − (v − 15) ∗ 18 kN, v > 15m/s

Note that the practical braking force is the combination of the mechanical braking and electrical
braking forces. The electrical braking force is small when trains run with a high speed, and the
mechanical braking can supply the needed braking force. Hence, the braking force can be taken as
a constant in metro systems. In the following simulations, the maximum braking force is assumed
to be 260 kN if there is no specific explanation. The electrical braking force is used to calculate the
regenerative braking energy.
The vehicles on the Beijing Yizhuang line consist of six car units, three of which are traction units.
The mass of each traction unit and non-traction unit is about 35 t and 31 t, respectively. The net
total train mass is about 198 t. The normal train capacity is 1500, but the number of on-board
passengers can reach 2000 in peak hours. The general, train mass in the simulation is assumed to
be 250 t according to the operational experience, and the maximum train mass is 320 t. Other vehicle
information is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Vehicle information.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Normal train mass 286 t Gearing Efficiency 0.93
Over-load train mass 311 t Maximum speed 80 km/h
AC motor power 180 kW Maximum acceleration 1.2 m/s2
Pantograph impedance 0.015 Ω Maximum deceleration −1 m/s2
Inverter efficiency 0.97 Equivalent internal resistance 0.07 Ω
Energies 2016, 9, 105 7 of 19

3.1.2. Infrastructure Data and Timetable

The infrastructure data of the Beijing Yizhuang line, including the altitude of the line and the
speed limit for each position, is shown in Figure 4. Stations (used for trains’ stopping and passengers’
alighting and boarding) from Jiugong to Jinghailu are above the ground, and the other six stations
are underground. Hence, there are two steep slopes near Jiugong and Jinghailu station. The gradient
acceleration rate of a section can be obtained with the altitude difference in Figure 4. Note that the
gradient for trains running from Yizhuang to Songjiazhuang and the gradient for trains running from
Songjiazhuang to Yizhuang are symmetric. In addition, there is normally a speed limit of 54 km/h
near stations, and the corresponding distance is about 150 m. The speed limit of the other sections is
generally 80 km/h. The speed limit of all sections is the same for the trains of two directions.

20 80

15 70

10
60

5
50

0
Altitude (m)

(km/h)

40
-5

30
-10

20
-15

-20 10

-25 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
distance (km) distance (km)

Figure 4. Gradient and speed limits of the Beijing Yizhuang line.

The current simplified timetable of the Yizhuang line is shown in Table 2. Note that the turn-back
times at Songjiazhuang and Yizhuang are 3 min in the timetable.

Table 2. Operation situation of the Yizhuang metro line.

Distance Dwell Times Trip Times Trip Times

Segment
(m) (s) (Up-Bound) (s) (Down-Bound) (s)
Songjiazhuang-Xiaocun 2631 30 190 195
Xiaocun-Xiaohongmen 1275 30 108 105
Xiaohongmen-Jiugong 2366 30 157 157
Jiugong-Yizhuangqiao 1982 35 135 135
Yizhuangqiao-Wenhuayuan 993 30 90 90
Wenhuayuan-Wanyuan 1538 30 114 111
Wanyuan-Rongjing 1280 30 103 101
Rongjing-Rongchang 1354 30 104 103
Rongchang-Tongjinan 2338 30 164 162
Tongjinan-Jinghai 2265 30 150 158
Jinghai-Ciqunan 2086 30 140 141
Ciqunan-Ciqu 1286 35 102 100
Ciqu-Yizhuang 1334 45 105 110

Specifically, some simulation in the following sections is based on the interstation between the
Jiugong and Yizhuangqiao station. Hence, the detailed gradient and speed limit for this journey is
given in Table 3.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 8 of 19

Table 3. Infrastructure data between Jiugong and Yizhuangqiao station. The negative gradient in the
second column means downhill gradients.

Position (m) Gradient (‰) Speed Limit (km/h) Position (m) Gradient (‰) Speed Limit (km/h)

0–130 0 54 1029–1115 0 80
130–466 0 80 1115–1405 −2 80
466–543 −4 80 1405–1768 −3 80
543–700 −6 80 1768–1802 −2 80
700–761 0 80 1802–1840 −1 80
761–851 7 80 1840–1975 0 54
851–1029 12 80 - - -

3.1.3. Substation
The Yizhuang line contains 12 substations (used for supplying power to trains), which are located
at each station, except the second station (Ciqu) and eighth station (Wanyuan) (see Table 4). Some
other substation-related information is given in Table 5.

Table 4. Location of substations.

Substation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Location 0 2.62 4.71 6.97 9.31 10.66 13.48 14.47 16.46 18.82 20.10 22.73

Table 5. Substation-related information.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Number of Substations 12 Auxiliary Power 45 kW
substation voltage with no load 850 V maximum tractive power 3680 kW
substation inner resistance 0.02 Ω Contact line impedance 0.007 Ω/km
over-voltage limitation 930 V Rail impedance 0.009 Ω/km

3.2. Trip Time

In the left figure of Figure 5, the relation between the trip time and energy consumption is
illustrated. With the increase of the trip time, the energy consumption decreases. In practical
operation, the dwell time for one station is constant on the Beijing Yizhuang line. The practical
dwell time is sometimes shorter than the scheduled dwell time in off-peak hours, which always
happens in metro systems. If the driver could close the door immediately after passengers’ boarding
and alighting process, the trip time for the next interstation will be prolonged, and the energy
consumption will be reduced effectively. By training the drivers, the invalid dwell time will be
utilized in the next interstation, which makes better use of the timetable to save energy.
In addition, the function between the energy consumption and the trip time is convex, which
means that it costs more energy to achieve the same time reduction when the trip time is shorter (see
the left picture in Figure 5). For example, the energy consumption increases by 3.4 kWh when the trip
time is reduced from 160 s to 150 s, compared to 4.8 kWh when the trip time is reduced from 150 s to
140 s.
Similarly, E-T functions of interstations are discrepant, and then, the energy consumptions
for the same time reduction are different for different interstations (see the right picture in
Figure 5), which can be used to optimally distribute the running time supplements among multiple
interstations [7,11]. Taking the Yizhuang line as an example, the driving strategies for each
interstation are firstly optimized with the OTCS. Compared to the practical operation, the energy
reduction is 8.64% with the energy-efficient driving strategy. Next, the trip time and the driving
Energies 2016, 9, 105 9 of 19

strategy are optimized together with the OTCS, and the traction energy consumption of the new
timetable is calculated. As shown in Table 6, the total traction energy consumption for multiple
interstations can be reduced by 12.07%. This implies that the optimized timetable has a good potential
for energy savings.

40 E/(kW·h)

35
Interstation 1 Interstation 2

30

E 2
Energy(kW*h)

E 2
E 1
25

E 1 T
T T
20

T
15

T/s
10
120 130 140 150 160 170
Trip time(s)
180 190 200 210 T1 T2

Figure 5. Influences of the trip time on the traction energy consumption.

Table 6. Comparison of energy consumption between the energy-efficient driving strategy and
integrated timetable optimization; the unit of the energy consumption is kW·h.

Interstation Practical Trip Time Practical Energy Consumption Energy with Optimized Driving Strategy Optimal Trip Time Energy with Integrated Approach
Songjiazhuang-Xiaocun 190 29.876 21.056 179.3 28.563
Xiaocun-Xiaohongmen 108 10.004 9.568 108.7 8.996
Xiaohongmen-Jiugong 157 20.302 19.680 153.6 21.652
Jiugong-Yizhuangqiao 135 20.515 19.932 134.6 20.303
Yizhuangqiao-Wenhuayuan 90 15.973 15.025 92.1 12.011
Wenhuayuan-Wanyuan 114 14.980 14.051 116.9 11.547
Wanyuan-Rongjing 103 9.156 8.903 105.4 7.922
Rongjing-Rongchang 104 13.068 12.293 108.4 10.015
Rongchang-Tongjinan 164 11.322 10.446 152.8 13.779
Tongjinan-Jinghai 150 21.711 20.047 149.2 20.806
Jinghai-Ciqunan 140 27.629 25.684 144.1 20.174
Ciqunan-Ciqu 102 22.944 21.399 106.4 18.090
Ciqu-Yizhuang 105 15.770 15.015 110.6 11.237
Total 1662 233.250 213.099 1662 205.095
Energy savings (%) - - 8.64 - 12.07

Hence, two techniques are concluded with respect to the trip time:

• Increase the trip time by reducing the invalid dwell time;

• Timetable optimization.

3.3. Train Mass

In this subsection, the influence of the train mass on the traction energy consumption is studied,
which is shown in Table 7. In this case, the running time is fixed (145 s), and the corresponding energy
consumptions are calculated with different train masses based on the OTCS. Obviously, the heavier
the train is, the more energy consumption it will consume during the trip, since more traction force
or a longer duration of traction will be applied to achieve the same train speed for a heavier train.
The results illustrate that the energy consumption will show a great increase from 16.8 kWh for 200 t
to 31.2 kWh for 300 t. In other words, the energy consumption is nearly doubled when the train mass
increases by 50%. Hence, the mass reduction is proposed as one of the important strategies to save
energy, not only for metro systems, but also for main line railway systems.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 10 of 19

Table 7. Energy consumptions with different train masses.

Train Mass (t) Energy Consumption (kW·h) Train Mass (t) Energy Consumption (kW·h) Train Mass (t) Energy Consumption (kW·h)
200 16.8 235 20.8 270 25.6
205 17.2 240 21.2 275 26.4
210 17.6 245 22.0 280 27.2
215 18.4 250 22.8 285 28.0
220 18.8 255 23.2 290 29.2
225 19.2 260 24.0 295 30.0
230 20.0 265 24.8 300 31.2

Important measures to reduce the train mass are concluded as follows [16,17]:
• Selection of light material, e.g., aluminum alloy;
• Development of new vehicle structure;
• Optimization of component design.

3.4. Gradient
In this subsection, we study the influence of the gradient on the traction energy consumption.
Three typical sections are chosen as examples in the case studies, i.e., the starting section from
130–466 m, the middle section from 761–851 m and the caudal section from 1840–1975 m. The
gradients of these three sections change from −4‰–11‰, from 1‰–15‰ and from −5‰–10‰,
respectively. The traction energy consumptions of the interstation from Jiugong to Yizhuangqiao
station are calculated with each gradient, which is shown in Table 8. The results show that more
energy will be consumed with the increase of the gradient for the starting section. The reason can
be explained as that more traction force or a longer duration of the traction force must be applied
to deliver the required trip time for a steeper uphill climb. On the contrary, the traction energy
consumption will decrease with an increasing gradient of the caudal section. Since a higher braking
rate can be obtained with a steeper uphill climb and the train needs less time to come to a standstill,
so, in order to deliver the same trip time with a higher braking rate, trains can accelerate to a lower
speed, which therefore costs less energy. In addition, more energy is needed when the gradient of
the middle section is greater. It is obviously that the train will consume more energy to overcome the
gradient resistance. It is also concluded that the longer the section distance is, the greater influence
it will have on the traction energy consumption. Specifically, the distance of the starting section is
336 m, much longer than 90 m and 135 m in the middle and caudal sections. Additionally, the energy
consumption increases by about 0.8 kWh when the gradient of the starting section gains 2‰ uphill,
compared to only 0.1 kWh for the middle and caudal sections.

Table 8. Energy consumptions for different gradients.

Section Parameters Value

G (‰) −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Energy (kWh) 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.2 22.6 23.0 23.3 23.7
1
G(‰) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Energy (kWh) 24.1 24.5 24.9 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.4 26.8
G (‰) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Energy (kWh) 21.8 21.8 21.9 21.9 22.0 22.0 22.1 22.1
2
G (‰) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -
Energy (kWh) 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 -
G (‰) −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
Energy (kWh) 22.8 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.6 22.6 22.5
3
G (‰) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Energy (kWh) 22.5 22.4 22.3 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.1 22.0
Energies 2016, 9, 105 11 of 19

Energy-efficient train operation should couple with a larger acceleration rate in the beginning,
less gradient resistance in the middle section and a larger braking rate at the end of the trip [25].
Generally, the vertical alignment is always designed to be downhill, slightly downhill and uphill in
shape to save the operational traction energy (see Figure 6). In addition, when we consider the trains
in both directions, the downhill gradient of the middle section in one direction implies uphill in the
other direction. Trains need to apply traction to achieve the gravitational potential energy for the
uphill gradient; while the gravitational potential energy can normally be used by trains running in
the other direction. A qualitative conclusion is drawn that the gradient in the middle section has little
influence on the total traction energy consumption of the operational systems.

Platform Gradient

Acceleration

Cruising and Braking

½ train length coasting
½ train length

Gradient length
Gradient length

Position

Acceleration distance Acceleration distance

Figure 6. Design of energy-saving slopes.

Although the slopes near stations could contribute to saving energy, the length of the slopes
should be paid attention to for a high efficiency. Generally, there is no doubt that trains should
overcome the gradient resistance for a steep uphill slope. However, the gravitational potential energy
may not be used for trains in the reverse direction if the length of the gradient is too long. As shown
in Figure 7, the red, black, blue and green curves denote the emergence braking speed, train speed,
traction or braking force and the gradient. The data are from the practical operations of trains running
between Yizhuang and Ciqu stations of the Yizhuang line. There is a steep slope near Yizhuang station
according to the infrastructure data. For trains running from Yizhuang to Ciqu, the downhill slope
could help the trains to achieve a high speed with a shorter time until the train reaches the target
speed. Then, the train has to apply braking to slow down the speed, such that it will not trigger the
emergency braking. As a result, the gravitational potential energy is wasted in some sense.
The proper length for the energy-efficient slop design will depend on the train length, traction
and braking characteristics and the maximum speed train speed. As shown in Table 9, the acceleration
distance will vary with different acceleration rates and the maximum train speed. Normally, the
platform is designed on a flat gradient, and the energy-efficient slopes should be considered according
to the acceleration distance. Taking the Yizhuang line as an example, the maximum train speed
is 80 km/h with an average acceleration of 0.60 m/s2 . The acceleration distance is about 407 m.
As shown in the right picture in Figure 6, the length of the energy-efficient gradient should be about
330 m, except the flat gradient in the platform.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 12 of 19

80

Speed(km/h)
70

60

50
400

40

Traction or braking force(kN)

300

30 30
200

20 20
100

10 10
0
Gradient(‰)

0 0
-100

-10 -10
-200

-20 -20
-300

-30 -30
-400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Position(m)

(a)
80
Speed(km/h)

70

60

50
400

40
300

30 30

Traction and braking force(kN)

200
20 20

100
10 10
Gradient(‰)

0
0 0

-10 -10 -100

-20 -20 -200

-30 -30
-300
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Position(m)

(b)

Figure 7. Influence of the gradient length on the energy consumption. (a) Driving strategy from
Yizhang to Ciqu station; (b) driving strategy from Ciqu to Yizhang station.

Table 9. Length of the energy-efficient slopes with different train types.

Parameters Value
Maximum Speed (km/h) 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Average acceleration rate (m/s2 ) 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45
Acceleration time (s) 37 41 45.5 50.7 55.6 60.8 63.6 67.9 74.1
Acceleration distance (m) 407 488 568 669 769 884 972 1085 1234
Length of trains (m) 140 140 145 148 140 142 160 162 160
Length of the slope (m) 330 410 490 590 690 800 870 980 1120

Important measures of the energy-efficient gradient design are concluded as follows:

• Increase the gradient near stations;

• Proper length of the gradient.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 13 of 19

3.5. Maximum Acceleration and Braking

In this subsection, we calculate the traction energy consumptions with different maximum
traction and braking forces with the OTCS. The results are shown in Table 10, which reveals that the
traction energy consumption presents a gentle decrease with the increase of the maximum traction
and braking forces. Definitely, the traction energy consumption is 23.70 kWh when the maximum
traction force is 285 kN, which decrease by 7.0% to 22.06 kWh when the maximum traction force is
360 kN. Additionally, the traction energy consumptions are 23.90 kWh, 23.50 kWh, 22.50 kWh and
21.90 kWh, respectively, with the corresponding maximum braking forces as 255 kN, 270 kN, 305
kN and 345 kN. The energy consumption increases by 8.4% with the maximum braking force rising
by 50%.

Table 10. Traction energy-saving performance with different maximum traction and braking forces.

Parameters Value
Maximum traction force (kN) 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320
Energy consumption (kWh) 23.70 23.58 23.46 23.34 23.23 23.11 22.99 22.88
Maximum traction force (kN) 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360
Energy consumption (kWh) 22.75 22.63 22.51 22.40 22.30 22.21 22.13 22.06
Maximum braking force (kN) 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290
Energy consumption (kWh) 23.90 23.77 23.64 23.50 23.32 23.15 22.99 22.83
Maximum braking force (kN) 295 305 310 320 330 335 340 345
Energy consumption (kWh) 22.66 22.50 22.41 22.30 22.19 22.09 21.99 21.90

The reasons are explained as follows. By comparing the Speed Profiles 1 and 2 in Figure 8, the
train should accelerate to a higher speed with a low acceleration rate for delivering the same trip time,
which will consume more energy. By making a comparison between the Speed Profiles 2 and 3, we
can obtain that the train with a higher braking rate can come to a stop more quickly, and then a lower
speed is needed during the trip, which could reduce the traction energy consumption. In conclusion,
vehicles with larger traction and braking forces will be more energy efficient.

Speed 1 Position 1

2 2 3
3

Time Time
0 T 0

Figure 8. Driving strategy with different maximum traction and braking forces.

3.6. Regenerative Braking

Many modern metro vehicles are capable of converting kinetic energy into electrical energy
when trains apply electrical braking, which is known as regenerative braking. According to [1],
approximately 30% of the traction energy from the braking train can be recovered and then reused
in the systems. More importantly, the characteristic of the train operations in metro systems is that
the maximum acceleration and electrical braking regimes frequently happen, which provides a good
opportunity for trains to utilize the regenerative energy. Efficient utilization of the regenerative
energy could make a great difference in reducing the energy consumption of metro systems.
The recovered regenerative energy can be firstly used by the on-board systems, such as lights,
carborne signaling systems and air conditioning. The rest of energy will be fed back to the power
Energies 2016, 9, 105 14 of 19

network, such that it can be used by the other accelerating trains. The energy could also be stored in
the energy storage systems (ESSs) and then be reused by trains. Hence, the utilization of regenerative
braking energy can be classified into two ways, i.e., immediate energy exchange between trains and
energy exchange between trains through ESSs.
For the storage of the regenerative energy, ESSs (such as super-capacitor, batteries, flywheels
and superconducting magnetic energy storage [26]) should be installed. According to the installation
position, the ESSs can be divided into two types, i.e., ESSs on the trains or ESSs along the track
side. The on-board ESSs, e.g., super-capacitor and batteries, are installed on trains, and the stored
regenerative energy can only be used by the train itself. The advantage is that the efficiency of the
reused regenerative energy is high, since this energy can be duratively and effectively utilized with
less line losses. However, the installation of the on-board ESSs will greatly increase the train mass
and will require a large space, so it is seldom used in practice nowadays. The wayside ESSs can store
the generated regenerated energy when nearby trains are applying regenerative braking. Then, the
stored energy can be reused by the passing trains when they need it (see Figure 9). The application
of the wayside ESSs requires an electrical controller to distinguish the driving strategy of the nearby
trains by detecting the voltage of the power line [27]. Trains in rail and rapid transit systems are
usually braking near stations, and thus, the ESSs are normally installed near stations to increase the
recovery efficiency. Compared to the on-board ESSs, one of the advantages for the application of the
wayside ESSs is that they can recover regenerative energy from multiple braking trains at the same
time, and their installation has little influence the operation and maintenance. However, wayside
ESSs are usually less efficient due to the transmission losses on the power line [28,29]. According
to experimental results [30–32], the rate of energy reduction with ESSs ranges from 12%–20% for
different lines.

Substation
ESS
(located near station)
Regenerative energy

Traction Braking

Figure 9. Energy exchange between trains through energy storage systems (ESSs).

Immediate energy exchange between trains could achieve good utilization of the regenerative
energy without installing other equipment (see Figure 10). However, the immediate energy exchange
between trains needs cooperative operation between the braking and traction trains. Firstly, if there
are no other traction trains when trains are braking, the regenerative energy will increase the voltage
of the grid to a high level until the tolerative voltage limit is reached. Then, the following regenerative
energy will be wasted at the braking resistance to protect the power network. Secondly, the
distance between the traction and braking trains should be short to achieve a high efficiency.
Furthermore, the driving strategy of the cooperative trains should be applying traction and braking at
the same time. In conclusion, the traction and braking trains should be matched in the time, space and
driving strategy. The trip distance of metro systems is short, and the traction and braking processes
usually happen near stations. As a result, a good cooperation between trains can be achieved near
stations by optimizing the train timetable.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 15 of 19

In our previous work [14], a cooperative train control model has been studied, in which the
regenerative energy is used better by adjusting the departure time. The simulation results show
that the net energy consumption can be reduced by 11.34% for peak hours with combining the
energy-efficient driving strategy and utilization of the regenerative energy.

Substation（located near station） Substation（located near station）

Regenerative energy

Braking train

Traction train

Figure 10. Immediate energy exchange between trains by regenerative braking.

3.7. Running Resistance

The running resistance is another important factor that influences the traction energy
consumption. As shown in the left figure in Figure 11, the energy consumption is 23.4 kWh for
the current train operation from Jiugong station to Yizhuangqiao station, which will be reduced by
0.4 kWh with the resistance decreased by 10%. If the running resistance can be cut by 90%, the energy
consumption with the same trip time will be 21.2 kWh, accounting for 90.6% of the current operation.

30

28
28

26
26

24
24

22
22
Energy(kW*h)
Energy(kW*h)

20
20

18
18

16
16

14
14

12
12

10
10 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Running resistance(%) Trip time(s)

Figure 11. Influence of running resistance on the traction energy consumption.

In Figure 11, we simulate the traction energy consumption for different trip times when the
running resistance is reduced by 20%. The average energy reduction is calculated to be 3%.
The energy-saving performance of improving the running resistance is smaller than the other
energy-efficient strategies; partially because the running resistance in metro systems is small and
the energy consumption for overcoming the running resistance accounts for a smaller proportion.
Note that there will be a significant difference for the scenarios in the high speed railway systems.
The running resistance is the most important aspect that restricts the maximum train speed, and
the traction energy consumption for overcoming the running resistance takes a large proportion in
the total traction energy for high-speed railways. Furthermore, improving trains’ external geometry,
trains’ surface roughness and the friction between trains and rail track can greatly contribute to the
reduction of the resistance according to the technical report [33].
Energies 2016, 9, 105 16 of 19

For metro systems, the running resistance is divided into basic running resistance and the
additional resistance. The basic running resistance is generally calculated as:

r (v) = a ∗ v2 + b ∗ v + c. (10)

Normally, the coefficients a and b are related to the train mass and the interaction between
tracks and train wheels. The coefficient c is related to the aerodynamics of the trains. The practical
technologies include the following items.

• Streamlining of head and tail;

• Streamlining of train sides and underfloor areas;
• Bogie fairings;
• Aerodynamic optimization of pantographs;
• Lubrication of wheels and tracks;
• Mass reduction.

The additional resistance includes gradient resistance, tunnel resistance and curvature resistance.
The gradient resistance has been analyzed in Section 3.4. The tunnel resistance can be generally
obtained as:
rtunnel (v) = 0.00013 ∗ Ltrain ( N/kN ), (11)

which is determined by the train length. When there is a speed limit at the tunnel, the tunnel
resistance will be:
rtunnel (v) = V 2 ∗ Ltrain /107 ( N/kN ). (12)

A lower speed limit and a shorter train length will contribute to reducing the tunnel resistance.
In addition, the equation for calculating the curvature resistance is as follows.

rcurve = 600/R( N/kN ). (13)

If the length Lcurve and the radius angle α of the curve are known, the equation can be
transformed to be:

 rcurve = 10.5 ∗ α/Lcurve , Lcurve ≥ Ltrain ;
(14)
rcurve = 10.5 ∗ α/Ltrain , Lcurve < Ltrain ;


Based on the above analysis, the possible strategies include:

• Enlarging the curve radius and the curve length;

• Shortening the train length (without reducing the train capacity);
• Reducing the speed limit at the tunnel.

3.8. Other Factors

In the subsections above, we have analyzed the possible factors that are related to the traction
energy consumption based on the optimal train control model. Besides, there are also some other
practical measures to save energy for metro systems. For example, the conversion losses will
happen during the transmission, which may account for 10% of the total energy consumption.
Hence, reducing the conversion losses at the inverters [34], traction motors and gears will make a
significant difference on energy efficiency. Secondly, alternative concepts for autonomous traction,
such as fuel cells [35] and hydrogen [36], might be needed in future railways. In addition, reducing
energy consumption for comfort functions, improving the space utilization and increasing the load
factor can also contribute to save the energy consumption of metro systems [33].
Energies 2016, 9, 105 17 of 19

4. Conclusions and Future Research

The main contribution of this paper is to analyze how the factors in the optimal train control
model influence the traction energy consumption based on the OTCS. A connection between the
energy-efficient operational strategies and energy-efficient system design strategies has been built.
Some energy-efficient design strategies, such as mass reduction, energy-efficient timetable, improving
the air aerodynamics and friction, the good design of gradients, increasing the maximum traction
and braking force and introducing regenerative braking, are concluded. These energy-efficient
strategies are evaluated with the data of the Beijing Yizhuang metro line, as shown in Table 11.
The simulation results illustrate that the energy reductions range from 1.5%–15% if appropriate
improvement on one factor is made, which may be over 20% by integrating all of the energy-efficient
strategies. Note that mass reduction, energy-efficient slopes and the improvement of vehicle traction
and braking characteristics aim to achieve a fast acceleration process with the constraint of riding
comfort. Except for saving energy, the installation of the ESSs on board may also increase the
traction energy consumption by increasing the train mass. Hence, the integrated performance of
all of the strategies is not simply the sum of all single strategies. The proposed research could give
important implications to the operators, sponsors and engineers that the energy-efficient strategies
should penetrate from the system design and operations procedures.

Table 11. Evaluation of different energy-efficient strategies.

Factors Strategies Energy-Saving%

Trip time Timetable optimization 3.5
Train mass 10% reduction 7
Gradient Optimized slopes distance 2
Maximum traction force Increase by 10% 3
Maximum braking force Increase by 5% 1.5
Regenerative braking Installation ESSs 15
Regenerative braking Timetable optimization 11
Running resistance 15% reduction 3

The application of the proposed energy-efficient strategies will be further studied in our future
work. For example, the reduction of the train mass and the increasing of the maximum traction
and braking forces may need new reformed vehicles. It is better to consider the design of the
energy-efficient gradient in the system design period. When installing the ESSs, the costs and benefits
should also be analyzed. This research will help the operators, sponsors and engineers to make the
final decision.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Beijing Laboratory of Urban Rail Transit, Beijing Key
Laboratory of Urban Rail Transit Automation and Control, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (No. 2014YJS029) and the projects funded by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology
Commission (No. D131100004113002 and No. D131100004013001) and the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 61503020).
Author Contributions: Tao Tang contributed to the conception of the study and provided the line and vehicle
data. Shuai Su contributed significantly to analysis and manuscript preparation. Yihui Wang helped to perform
the analysis with constructive discussions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Railenergy. Innovative Integrated Energy Efficiency Solutions for Railway Rolling Stock. Technical Report;
2006. Available online: http://www.uic.org/cdrom/2008/11_wcrr2008/pdf/R.3.4.3.1.pdf (accessed on
6 February 2016).
2. Howlett, P.G. Optimal strategies for the control of a train. Automatica 1996, 32, 519–532.
3. Liu, R.; Golovitcher, I. Energy-efficient operation of rail vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A 2003, 37, 917–932.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 18 of 19

4. Howlett, P.G.; Pudney, P.J.; Vu, X. Local energy minimization in optimal train control. Automatica 2009, 45,
2692–2698.
5. Khmelnitsky, E. On an optimal control problem of train operation. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2000, 45,
1257–1266.
6. Su, S.; Li, X.; Tang, T.; Gao, Z.Y. A subway train timetable optimization approach based on energy-efficient
operation strategy. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2013, 14, 883–893.
7. Su, S.; Tang, T.; Li, X.; Gao, Z.Y. Optimization on multi-train operation in subway system. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2014, 15, 673–684.
8. Ke, B.R.; Chen, M.C.; Lin, C.L. Block-layout design using max-min ant system for saving energy on mass
rapid transit systems. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2009, 10, 226–235.
9. Chang, C.; Sim, S. Optimising train movements through coast control using genetic algorithms. IEEE Electr.
Power Appl. 2008, 144, 65–73.
10. Albrecht, T.; Oettich, S. A new integrated approach to dynamic schedule synchronization and
energy-saving train control. Comput. Railw. VIII 2002, 61, 847–856.
11. Scheepmaker, G.M.; Goverde, R.M.P. The interplay between energy-efficient train control and scheduled
running time supplements. J. Rail Transp. Plan. Manag. 2015, doi:10.1016/j.jrtpm.2015.10.003.
12. Zhao, N.; Roberts, C.; Hillmansen, S.; Western, P.; Chen, L.; Tian, Z.B.; Xin, T.Y.; Su, S. Train trajectory
optimisation of ATO systems for metro lines. In Proceeding of the IEEE 17th International Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Qingdao, China, 8–11 October 2014; pp. 1796–1801.
13. Lin, W.S.; Sheu, J.W. Optimization of train regulation and energy usage of metro lines using an
adaptive-optimal-control algorithm. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2011, 8, 855–864.
14. Su, S.; Tang, T. Roberts, C. A cooperative train control model for energy-Saving. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2015, doi:10.1109/TITS.2014.2334061.
15. Gong, C.; Zhang, S.W.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, J.G.; Wang, X.H. An integrated energy-Efficient operation
methodology for metro systems based on a real case of Shanghai metro line one. Energies 2014, 7, 7305–7329.
16. Carruthers, J.J.; Calomfirescu, M.; Ghys, P.; Prockat, J. The application of a systematic approach to material
selection for the lightweighting of metro vehicles. Proc. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 2009, 223,
427–437.
17. Rochard, B.P.; Schmid, F. Benefits of lower-mass trains for high speed rail operations. Proc. Inst. Civil
Eng. Transp. 2004, 157, 51–64.
18. Walter, G. Technologies for increased energy efficiency in railway systems. Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl.
2005, 10, 1–10.
19. Wang, B.; Yang, Z.P.; Lin, F.; Zhao, W. An improved genetic algorithm for optimal stationary energy storage
system locating and sizing. Energies 2014, 7, 6434–6458.
20. Xia, H.; Chen, H.X.; Yang, Z.P.; Lin, F.; Wang, B. Optimal energy management, location and size for
stationary energy storage system in a metro line based on genetic algorithm. Energies 2015, 8, 11618–11640.
21. Cheng, J.; Howlett, P. A note on the calculation of optimal strategies for the minimization of fuel
consumption in the control of trains. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1993, 38, 1730–1734.
22. Hansen, I.; Pachl, J. Railway Timetable and Traffic; Eurailpress: Hamburg, Germany, 2008.
23. Su, S.; Tang, T.; Chen, L.; Liu, B. Energy-efficient train control in urban rail transit systems. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 2015, doi:10.1177/0954409713515648.
24. Kondo, M. Traction and Braking Performance of Beijing Subway Line; Techiqual Report; Dongyang
Manufacturer of Motor: Tokyo, Japan, 2009.
25. Xu, H.Z.; Cheng, G.Z.; Wu, C. Study on the design method of energy-saving slope in subway.
Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 204–208, 1559–1564.
26. Gonzalez-Gil, A.; Palacin, R.; Batty, P. Sustainable urban rail systems: Strategies and technologies for
optimal management of regenerative braking energy. Energy Conver. Manag. 2013, 75, 374–388.
27. Konishi, T.; Morimoto, H.; Aihara, T.; Tsutakawa, M. Fixed energy storage technology applied for DC
electrified railway. IEEE Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2010, 5, 270–277.
28. Lee, H.; Lee, H.A.; Lee, C.; Jang, G.; Kim, G. Energy storage application strategy on DC electric railroad
system using a novel railroad analysis algorithm. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2010, 5, 228–238.
Energies 2016, 9, 105 19 of 19

29. Shen, X.J.; Chen, S.H.; Zhang, Y. Configure methodology of on-board supper-capacitor array for recycling
regenerative braking energy of URT vehicles. In Proceeding of the IEEE Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 7–11 October 2012.
30. Ciccarellia, F.; Iannuzzia, D.; Tricolib, P. Control of metro-trains equipped with onboard supercapacitors for
energy saving and reduction of power peak demand. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2012, 24, 36–39.
31. Destraz, B.; Barrade, P.; Rufer, A.; Klohr, M. Study and simulation of the energy balance of an urban
transportation network. In Proceeding of the 2007 European Conference on Power Electronics and
Applications, Aalborg, Denmark, 2–5 September 2007; pp. 1–10; doi:10.1109/EPE.2007.4417349.
32. Moskowitz, J.P.; Cohuau, J.L. STEEM: ALSTOM and RATP experience of supercapacitors in tramway
operation. In Proceeding of the 2010 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Lille, France,
1–3 September 2010; pp. 1–5, doi:10.1109/VPPC.2010.5729152.
33. Energy Efficiency Tech. Energy Efficiency Strategies for Rolling Stock and Train Operation; Technical
Report; Energy Efficiency Tech, 2005. Available online: http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Energy
EfficiencyTech.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2016).
34. Drabek, P.; Peroutka, Z.; Pittermann, M.; Cedl, M. New Configuration of traction converter with
medium-frequency transformer using matrix converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 5041–5048.
35. Yedavalli, K.; Guo, L.P.; Zinger, D.S. Simple control system for a switcher locomotive hybrid fuel cell power
system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2011, 47, 2384–2390.
36. Hoffrichter, A.; Fisher, P.; Tutcher, J.; Hillmansen, S.; Roberts, C. Performance evaluation of the
hydrogen-powered prototype locomotive “Hydrogen Pioneer”. J. Power Sour. 2014, 250, 120–127.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by
Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).